23 YEARS LATER: Front-page debacles through the years!

THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2015

Part 4—And the concomitant silence:
If there was nothing important at stake, the whole thing would simply be funny.

The comedy would have taken place in last Sunday’s New York Times. On the last page of Sunday Review, the newspaper’s pubic editor was still trying to address the Times’ previous front-page debacle.

But how comical! Even as Margaret Sullivan scolded the Times for its previous front-page mess, a new debacle was taking place on the newspaper’s new front page—and this new debacle was driving the rest of the nation’s “campaign coverage!”

How comical! The new debacle was taking shape in a news report on page A1, the newspaper's formal front page, and in a lengthy column on the front page of Sunday Review. On the back page of the latter section, the public editor was still trying to decipher the previous debacle!

If nothing important was at stake, this would merely be funny. But something important was at stake as this ridiculous nonsense occurred. Early in last Sunday’s column, the public editor quoted a well-known reader who had explained what that is:
SULLIVAN (8/2/15): I wrote a blog post Monday, faulting The Times for too much speed in publishing the [previous front-page debacle], and too little transparency in correcting and revising it, and for the all-too-familiar reliance on anonymous government sources. Rushing to publish a scoop, The Times failed to make sure that the story was correct, and hurt its reputation for authoritative accuracy—precisely what its most loyal readers count on.

Afterward, Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University, wrote to The Times: “There is far more at stake than a newspaper’s reputation. How about the future of our country and the countless lives that are affected by the outcome of a presidential election?”
Professor Tannen had gotten it right! So had public editor Sullivan in selecting Tannen’s comment for publication.

But alas! If we might borrow from Erich Segal, being public editor at the Times means never getting to say that you’re current! Even as Sullivan puzzled about the prior front-page debacle, its goony successor had formed!

The front-page debacles come thick and fast at the New York Times. It we might borrow from glorious Homer, these debacles arrive in steady succession, “as battle lines of breakers crash and drag along some endless beach, and the rough sea roars.”

(Needless to say, that’s Professor Fagels’ translation.)

Presumably, a major newspaper should try to avoid front-page debacles in general. But it can sometimes seem that the Times’ debacles are notable in two ways:

Dating back some 23 years, these debacles may possibly seem to be disproportionately aimed at Candidate Clinton. And dating back that same 23 years, the liberal world may seem to have mastered the technique of refusing to complain about this phenomenon.

Is it true? Does the Times create a disproportionate number of debacles which cut against Candidate Clinton?

On the back page of the Sunday Review, Sullivan was examining that general question. She seemed to judge that the New York Times does have some sort of problem with that particular hopeful.

(Sullivan: “I agree with this sentiment from a reader, Evan Hannay, who is troubled by some of the Clinton coverage: ‘Hillary deserves tough questions when they are warranted. But it is undeniable that she is already facing significantly tougher coverage than any other potential candidate.’”)

Is the Times executing some sort of “vendetta” against Candidate Clinton, as Sullivan quoted James Fallows alleging in her public editor piece?

It’s hard to assess such sweeping claims. That said, let’s consider a quartet of front-page debacles which the Times somehow managed to publish in roughly a three-month span:
April 24, 2015: The scary uranium deal
In this, the granddaddy of them all, the Times publish a mammoth, 4400-word report which constituted a Platonic ideal of apparently partisan, incompetent “campaign reporting.” Judged on a journalistic basis, the report was a remarkable gong show; it resulted from a peculiar deal the Times had struck with Peter Schweizer, a presumably well-intentioned but highly partisan source.

Sullivan mentioned that peculiar deal in Sunday’s public editor column: “Readers objected last April to the way The Times, touting an “exclusive agreement” with the author, reported on aspects of a highly critical book, ‘Clinton Cash.’” Whatever the source of the mammoth report, the journalism it put on display was a gong show, a sprawling, front-page disgrace.

May 30, 2015: The misuse of the supermodel
In this ridiculous front-page report, the Times devoted 2200 words to the claim that the Clinton Foundation had cruelly misused Petra Nemcova, a smokin’ hot Czech supermodel who also runs Happy Hearts, a charitable foundation. The Times struggled and strained to establish the nature of the alleged misuse, while doing an extremely good job of sliming Nemcova herself.

In this ridiculous front-page report, the Times diddled itself with two of the newspaper’s favorite themes—the Clintons have way too much money, plus supermodels exist! Judged on a journalistic basis, this ugly front-page pseudo-report was a groaning journalistic disgrace. On the brighter side, it managed to bring the gender craziness of Maureen Dowd to the paper’s front page.

July 24, 2015: Michael Schmidt does it again
Every time we see Michael Schmidt, he’s appearing on Morning Joe. He’s insisting the Times has made no changes in his latest report, even though the Times plainly has.

In this case, Schmidt had published the multiply-bungled front-page debacle which Sullivan was still attempting to assess in last Sunday’s public editor column. A previous blog post by Sullivan had carried this headline: “A Clinton Story Fraught with Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?”

August 2, 2015: The dying man’s last nouns
Even as Sullivan struggled with the previous front-page debacle, the new debacle was appearing on the Times’ front page. In a ridiculous piece of sleight-of-hand, an unsourced tale from Dowd’s latest column had been transferred to a front-page news report, where Dowd’s unsourced, melodramatic claims were referred to as a “report.”

A serious newspaper wouldn’t have allowed the lurid, unsourced tale to appear in Dowd’s opinion column. Only the Times would let such lurid, unsourced claims move straight to its front page.
Can we talk? Those are just the front-page debacles we can recall off the top of our heads! They all cut against one particular candidate—the candidate with whom the New York Times has some sort of problem, or so its public editor seems to have judged.

Of course, there’s nothing new about front-page debacles at the Times which cut against the Clintons. The history extends back twenty-three years:
March 8, 1992: Jeff Gerth arrives on the scene
In an 1800-word front-page report, Jeff Gerth wrote the first of the front-page reports which invented the alleged Whitewater scandal. A long history surrounds these front-page reports. Almost surely, they changed world history.
More than twenty-three years ago, the front-page reports got their start! By 1994, Harper’s magazine was attempting to push back against the apparently bungled front-page reports concerning the Whitewater business deal—the front-page reports which largely created an era of perceived scandal.

On October 25 of that year, the venerable journal sponsored a two-hour panel discussion concerning the Times’ Whitewater reporting. The event was held at the National Press Club.

To watch the entire event, click here.
The New York Times didn’t attend.

How good, or how bad, were those front-page reports about the Whitewater matter? Such questions aren’t easily answered in a few simple words. That said:

Twenty-three years after Jeff Gerth appeared, the front-page debacles continue rolling ashore. They resemble glorious Homer’s line of breakers, which crashed and dragged as wily Odysseus walked by the wine-dark sea.

Tomorrow, we’ll consider an important phenomenon:

We’ll consider the silence our favorite liberal stars still bring to these front-page debacles.

Tomorrow: It we might borrow from our Shakespeare: Alas, poor Boehlert!

14 comments:

  1. We all understand that Fox is biased. That understanding informs the way we are affected by whatever Fox reports and our choice of what to watch.

    The left should be declaring the NYTimes similarly biased. At least then readers would know to take its reports with a grain of salt, or read other sources.

    Labeling the Times biased does not require a lot of work to document how each story is incorrect. Few people bother refuting Fox any more. It requires a consensus on the left to declare the source unsound.

    The problem is that a substantial number of people on the left are anti-Clinton too, joining the right to malign her. They like what the Times is doing and live in the fantasy that Bernie van defeat whatever Republican runs. As long as the left won't defend its most viable candidate, the Times will continue to pull this shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Sanders wins the nomination and loses the general election, the blame should be laid at the feet of the HRC purists, who would rather stay home and sulk rather than vote for the Democratic nominee.

      Delete
    2. If there's one thing I learned in 2008, it's that the party machine owns the process through the super delegate vote. And the party machine will never give the nomination to a 73 year old socialist from Vermont.

      Delete
    3. That HRC is the Dems most "viable candidate" says more about the DNC's enervating leadership than any NYT or FNC reporting of polls showing the majority of US voters — 54 percent — say Hillary Clinton is not honest or trustworthy.

      Delete
    4. No one expects conservative voters say anything nice about Hillary. Dems find her much more trustworthy.

      Delete
    5. Clinton will win the election.

      Delete
    6. @ 6:50

      If the polling on HRC's untrustworthiness were a reflection of conservative voters and not likely Democratic Party voters, why would Dems encourage VP Biden to run against HRC? The Dems that delude themselves HRC is a paradigm of honesty must have marveled at Jodi Arias' gift for mendacity.

      Delete
    7. The last President to speak truth to the American public got shellacked by a know-nothing corporate spokesmen in 1980.
      The public doesn't want honesty. They want flattery.

      Delete
    8. @ 2:10

      Carter got his truth from daughter Amy. When will Chelsea tell her mother the truth?

      Delete
  2. Twenty three years later or maybe over thirty:

    For Hillary Rodham Clinton to have ventured anywhere near Madison in any capacity was a damn fool thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am Happy to Share this Testimony of mine to the Entire world on how i just got my Husband back who left me just because we had a minor Quarrel. He Left me and Our Three Years old Daughter without knowing if we were in existence. A friend of mine Directed me to Dr Caro, A Female Spell Caster and When i contacted Her, She Did a Love spell for me and my Husband who was away for almost 6 years still came back and knelt down in front of me begging to forgive all he caused me and our daughter. From that Moment, We have being living in peace and in happiness and i so much Grateful to what Dr Caro did for me. anyone who is reading this testimony and want to contact Dr caro for help should kindly do that by emailing her on: carosolutionhome@hotmail.com
    Website: http://carosolutionhome.webs.com/
    Annie Snyder

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am Happy to Share this Testimony of mine to the Entire world on how i just got my Husband back who left me just because we had a minor Quarrel. He Left me and Our Three Years old Daughter without knowing if we were in existence. A friend of mine Directed me to Dr Caro, A Female Spell Caster and When i contacted Her, She Did a Love spell for me and my Husband who was away for almost 6 years still came back and knelt down in front of me begging to forgive all he caused me and our daughter. From that Moment, We have being living in peace and in happiness and i so much Grateful to what Dr Caro did for me. anyone who is reading this testimony and want to contact Dr caro for help should kindly do that by emailing her on: carosolutionhome@hotmail.com
    Website: http://carosolutionhome.webs.com/
    Annie Snyder
    ..

    ReplyDelete

  5. My Name is Carol williams.I will love to share my testimony to all the people in the forum cos i never thought i will have my boyfriend back and he means so much to me..The boy i want to get marred to left me 4 weeks to our wedding for another girl..,When i called her she never picked my calls,She deleted me on his facebook and he changed her facebook status from engaged to Single...when i went to her place of work he told his boss he dont want to see me..I lost my job as a result of this cos i cant get myself anymore,my life was upside down and everything did not go smooth with my life...I tried all i could do to have him back,all did not work out until i met a prophet when i Travelled to Africa to execute some business have been developing some years back..I told him my problem and all have passed through in getting her back and how i lost my job...he told me he gonna help me...i didn't believe that in the first place.but he swore he will help me out and he told me the reason why my girlfriend left me and also told me some hidden secrets.i was amazed when i heard that from him..he said he will cast a spell for me and i will see the results in the next couple of days..then i travel back to Us the following day and i called him when i got home and he said he's busy casting those spells and he has bought all the materials needed for the spells,he said am gonna see positive results in the next 2 days that is Thursday...My boyfriend called me at exactly 12:35pm on Thursday and apologies for all he had done ..he said,he never knew what she's doing and her sudden behavior was not intentional and he promised not to do that again.it was like am dreaming when i heard that from him and when we ended the call,i called the man and told him my girlfriend called and he said i haven't seen anything yet... he said i will also get my job back in 3 days time..and when its Sunday,they called me at my place of work that i should resume working on Monday and they gonna compensate me for the time limit have spent at home without working..My life is back into shape,i have my man back and we are happily married now with kids and i have my job back too.This man is really powerful..if we have up to 20 people like him in the world,the world would have been a better place..he has also helped many of my friends to solve many problems and they are all happy now..Am posting this to the forum for anybody that is interested in meeting the man for help.you can mail him to Dr.jartospellcaster@gmail.com I cant give out his number cos he told me he don't want to be disturbed by many people across the world..he said his email is okay and he' will replied to any emails asap..hope he helped u out too..good luck:Dr.jartospellcaster@gmail.com.Once Again His Email Address Is:Dr.jartospellcaster@gmail.com


    ReplyDelete
  6. I am full of happiness and delight, on the grounds that I have my significant other once more at my palm. My partner left me for just about 2 years. He doesn't pick or even return my calls and sends I tried each approaches to get him back, however no way. Until I met with this extraordinary spell caster called sacura, who did magic for me to get him back in less than 42hrs. I exhort anybody going to this site to run to him promptly for any relationship offer assistance. He is an extremely effective and experience spell caster you can get help from.you can contact this great man Dr sacura on his email drsacuratemple@hotmail.com



    ReplyDelete